Swiss Game Ban May Feature Only a Little Censorship

According to the politician behind the law, a recently-ratified, but not yet enacted, Swiss violent game ban would not blindly outlaw all violent games.

Swiss Social Democrat Evi Allemann (pictured) was recently interviewed by the Swiss publication 20 Minutes Online (translated) and indicated that the ban would apply only to “individual games.” She estimated that, “like in Germany,” only 12 or so games would wind up being banned, including titles such as Mortal Kombat and Manhunt (which are banned in Germany), but not the likes of Counter-Strike.

It appears Allemann would specifically focus on games which display “cruel acts of violence” that a player contributes to.

Allemann, apparently, does not put much faith into the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) rating system, saying that PEGI is “not enough” and intimating that Switzerland and/or Europe needs an independent federal agency to rate games, one that is free of any ties to the gaming industry.

The 20 Minutes article also points to a petition (translation) against the two motions passed by the Swiss National Council (the other measure would make it illegal to sell 16 or 18-rated PEGI games to minors). The petition currently has 3612 signatures.

Thanks to Eragon for the head’s up!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Mortal Combat is full of ninja kicking ass people w/ some special powers and extra limbs. They are banning that game?!?!?! But not CS even though it features weapons killing people.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  2. deuxhero says:

    Why is the great country that has a fully automatic rifle in each home (and has double digit gun crimes for it) working on censorship? Damn it Switzerland, you used to be cool.

  3. Adrian Lopez says:

    I was about to post, sarcastically: "Well, as long as it’s only some games being banned, I guess it’s okay."

  4. Father Time says:

    Yeah really. "We’re only banning 5 things for no good reason so why are you complaining, it’s only 5.".


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  5. Zerodash says:

    I love how these scumbag pols act like there is some kind of magical number of things they can ban beneath which its perfectly okay.  Censorship is censorship- regardless of quantity. 

  6. Father Time says:

    To me this is like saying "you only have a little bit of disease." Even if it doesn’t spread you should still get rid of it.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  7. Bigman-K says:

    Even 1 game being banned is too much. The nanny-state should stay the hell out of your lives unless we’re likely to harm other people with our actions/conduct or steal or destory their property. If an individual finds a video game too violent or gruesome, then they have a choice not to play it and if a parent finds a video game too violent or gruesome, then it’s their sole responsibility to make sure their children aren’t playing it. Period.

     "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  8. Michael Chandra says:

    Don’t forget the whole "it’s a total ban but we’ll only apply it to a few games!"

  9. Father Time says:

    Oh Ok so instead banning hundreds of games that no one has proven to be harmful, you’re only going to ban a few. Well that’s just swell and is totally fine /sarcasm.

    —————————————————- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  10. Michael Chandra says:

    Is there anybody who would like me to try to give more details about the original article? My German isn’t that good, but it’s good enough to read about everything she’s saying, due to the language being similar. As you can see, I reacted to the contents of the article, rather than just what GP has.

  11. Michael Chandra says:

    She basically blindly follows the German example, while pretending to be neutral about things. We’ve seen that attitude before from that country.

  12. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    “Cruel acts of violence”? They could ban Mario Kart for that.

    Banning Mortal Kombat (which one(s)?) and Manhunt, but not Counter Strike? That doesn´t make any sense. So, is better to shot people instead of decapitate them?


    ———————————————————— My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship):

  13. Michael Chandra says:

    What we’ve been told so far, however, means this ban can be applied to nearly every computer game, and you thus risk abuse by fanatics against everything including Counter Strike. You CAN’T have an Absolute Ban that only applies to a few games, then it isn’t an absolute ban. A full ban on anything is NOT the way to start a discussion about regulation, pretending that’s the right way to do it is political nonsense.

    Also, why does she think american versions are more brutal than european versions? Are games for the general European market (so apart from the censoring countries) really less brutal than USA releases?

    And she pulls in child pornography and racism to illustrate the web can and will be regulated by law. Seriously, what? That is NOT the example you should be using if you want critics to listen to you, comparing video games to child pornography isn’t going to get you many friends.

    Let’s see… She considers it logical that players of killing games become violent, I think (not entirely sure about a few words), but she’s pretty sure that excessive usage will make you more agressive, but that if you don’t have other negative factors you’ll turn out alright.

    No actual explanation on WHY she’d want to fully ban the games, rather than just for minors. Just some political nonsense about not wanting to take away games, but that some games go past the limit of acceptable entertainment. In other words, she DOES decide what other adults should find acceptable.

  14. Thad says:

    Wait…Mortal Kombat is controversial?

    Quick: who’s President?  What year is this?  I never should have gotten in that hot tub!

Comments are closed.